Please slow down

[Cyclone 10]

actually - reading more of this thread is disturbing me

 

there seem to be way too many people who have decided that any accident is the fault of the slowest moving and most vulnerable party in any situation

 

I'd like to see the law changed so that the least vulnerable party is always to blame - like car/cyclist collisions in Amsterdam. It's amazing how damned considerate people are over there when travelling, rather than having the aggressive attitude they do here

 

How about the one who's actually to blame being held accountable.

 

Something like 85% of pedestrian involving accidents are the fault of the pedestrian.

[Cyclone 10]

How about "don't swerve to avoid animals in the road".

 

Although speed is invariably a major factor in serious injury accidents, which is what the advert is aimed at reducing. Quoting three main causes of minor bumps is hardly relevant.

 

Speed is a factor, in that the higher the speed the higher likelihood of serious injury, but it is not a causative factor. Travelling at high speed is inherently no more dangerous than low speed. It just multiplies the severity of any accident caused by a driving error.

[Cyclone 10]

How ridiculous. The message is clearly that if you speed you are less able to respond to the unexpected in time (distance) to deal with it.

 

And I disagree with some comments above. The OP was drawing something to our attention which he/she has found to be personally valuable/stimulating/interesting in much the same way as people come on here to talk about their recent purchase of celery or anger at bus drivers. It's no different.

 

That's also true if you're old, or tired, or inexperienced, or simply slower than someone else.

Driving fast is not analogous to driving badly.

[garryn 10]

Great idea - so it's the car's fault, even if the cyclist just swerves out in front of a carefully driven car.

 

Daftest suggestion I've ever heard.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069858

 

Rule 213 - take it you've got a licence?

 

Hows it carefully driven if you're driving contrary to the HC?

[hels1977 10]

How about "don't swerve to avoid animals in the road".

 

Although speed is invariably a major factor in serious injury accidents, which is what the advert is aimed at reducing. Quoting three main causes of minor bumps is hardly relevant.

 

Agreed, funnily enough that's the most likely explanation the police have for why my friend who was just 29 and "sensible" is now dead. Never ever swerve for an animal

[04jessops 10]

 

Only registered a few days ago and already being a 24 carot P ***

 

If only more people were welcomed onto the forum like that.

[Dashpot 10]

Originally Posted by Dashpot

Great idea - so it's the car's fault, even if the cyclist just swerves out in front of a carefully driven car.

 

Daftest suggestion I've ever heard.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069858

 

Rule 213 - take it you've got a licence?

 

Hows it carefully driven if you're driving contrary to the HC?

Yes, I have had a license for some considerable time and at least one of us would seem to understand the tenet of this aspect of UK traffic law.

 

Why do you assume a car being driven contrary to the Highway Code in the event of an accident?

 

In this case, the Highway Code says that drivers should be careful and watch out for more vulnerable road users, it does not say that a car is automatically being driven contrary to the Code in the event of an accident with such a vulnerable user.

 

If a pedestrian is hiding out of view up a tree and jumps down onto the road in front of a passing car, your logic would suggest that the car driver is breaking the law - what rubbish.

 

The same would apply to a car being driven carefully when a cyclist in another lane recklessly crosses lanes into the path of the car - the car driver will take appropriate caution for vulnerable road users, but cannot predict their every move, nor be responsible for their every move.

[CottonTop 11]

I think the OP is taking the opportunity to ask you all to stop and think and is trying to put across that speed kills. It is a fact and one I have witnessed first hand. Its only a small thing driving a bit slower and being more careful but if it saves someone's life, isn't it worth it?

[garryn 10]

Originally Posted by Dashpot

Great idea - so it's the car's fault, even if the cyclist just swerves out in front of a carefully driven car.

 

Daftest suggestion I've ever heard.

Yes, I have had a license for some considerable time and at least one of us would seem to understand the tenet of this aspect of UK traffic law.

 

Why do you assume a car being driven contrary to the Highway Code in the event of an accident?

 

In this case, the Highway Code says that drivers should be careful and watch out for more vulnerable road users, it does not say that a car is automatically being driven contrary to the Code in the event of an accident with such a vulnerable user.

 

If a pedestrian is hiding out of view up a tree and jumps down onto the road in front of a passing car, your logic would suggest that the car driver is breaking the law - what rubbish.

 

The same would apply to a car being driven carefully when a cyclist in another lane recklessly crosses lanes into the path of the car - the car driver will take appropriate caution for vulnerable road users, but cannot predict their every move, nor be responsible for their every move.

 

You're changing the parameters of your statement now.

 

You said "Great idea - so it's the car's fault, even if the cyclist just swerves out in front of a carefully driven car. " which is what I responded to.

 

If the cyclists in front of you, I take it you're leaving an adequate gap incase he stops suddenly? or if he has to swerve as in rule 213? otherwise its not carefully driven.

[AJ sheffield 11]

Got a rite chip on your shoulder havn't you

 

no one has asked you to post

 

Only registered a few days ago and already being a 24 carot P ***

 

Yeah it only took 728 posts for us to realise you were one.

[Mr_Squirrel 10]

How ridiculous. The message is clearly that if you speed you are less able to respond to the unexpected in time (distance) to deal with it.

 

The message was clear to me wayyyy before i started driving that the faster you go the less able you are to act upon the unexpected, thats blindingly obvious, as much as the unexpected is just that- unexpected.....but people can be killed by a car at any speed... take for example a driver in a queue of slow moving traffic (say 15mph) who takes his eyes off the road for 2 seconds to look for his fag lighter and a drunk wobbles into the road in front of him.....

 

True, the driver should not take his eyes off the road for 1 second or take his hand off the steering wheel (changing gear?) or change channels on the radio or god forbid...breathe, let alone applying eyeliner, but these things people do and no amount of pious hypocritical nannying will change that....roads are dangerous, people are stupid and accidents will happen.

 

This advert is simple plain propaganda targeted at the brainwashed 'speed kills' brigade.....where are the adverts telling morons to turn off the rear foglights in heavy rain? or that overtaking on the left is incredibly stupid and suicidal?...........there are none....why?.......the reason?....."speed kills" nothing else does it seems.

[Crayfish 10]

I like fast.